O’Nest: To God

August 10, 2010

Dear Supreme Being (she/he),

I considered putting ‘Dearest’ only to realize that would have been somewhat self-defeating. Fortunately for both of us I did realize it in time, considering what otherwise might have happened (if you allow me to speak of ‘happen’ here) to us out-of-time (so to speak). ‘Both of us’, I say, as I quite understand you find no joy in punishing me (or anyone else for that matter – one of a few things we probably have in common).

But more on that later as I first want to announce to my dearest readers that, below the fold, I will apologize to them.

As you probably know in a conceptual kind of way, I have no problem with the order in which you left the universe. It is much better than most of what we get to see by way of science fiction and only slightly worse than a well made scene in a well-scripted porn movie. I dare say more: I am A-OK whether you left the universe all marbly deterministic in the Einstein-way or Bohrishly stochastic in mysterious fuzziness. I can go either way even if I have little or no choice in the matter whatever theory prevails. That’s me: I can go either way on just about everything. I confess! I know you already know all of this but people keep on telling me you like me confessing to it and being all dramatic about it and stuff. I get it as well: if I take the trouble to be dramatic about it, I will remember the lesson learnt and be properly edified.

Anyway, however you left the universe, I am fine with it. What else could I do? I am fine with it so I am fine with it – and whether the arrangement is thus or otherly does not make the slightest difference to the fact that I am fine with it and it could not possibly have been otherwise. Or something like that. Or something unlike that. As people into mystery don’t tire of reminding us: only in appreciating that we cannot attain the truth can we, in fact, attain truth. I’m fine with them as well (I rather prefer that they would stop reminding me on account of it giving me a terrible headache, but I’m fine. I really am).

But here’s the point where I need to start saying “But here’s the thing” if I don’t want to bore the few readers, who are not just ‘dear’ but ‘dearest’, up to the point of them forgetting that I promised them an apology.

So:

But here’s the thing, why do people keep on insisting on the number 3? It bothers me immensely, specifically if they are telling you are ‘3’. I admit I tend to get upset with almost anything numerological, certainly when it gets all pretentious and numerosophical, but ‘3’ pushes me right over the edge, anytime. Not that I want to single out that number; in fact, I want people to stop singling out numbers. I can half understand why people single out ‘1’ – and I can almost completely understand why people do not even want to call ‘0’ a number; but if you also treat ‘3’ as somehow holy special you have to be consistent enough to treat all of them as holy specially fully wondery.

So why? Why a Trinity? I would not ask this question if I would not have written this with the purpose of building up to a clear and concise answer that will make it look forever after as rhetorical. It’s a joke. I mean the answer to the ‘Why a Trinity?’ is: ‘Because it is a joke!’, it should have been ‘4’ instead of ‘3’ but the supreme faculty of laughing at us is hidden – so as to make it so much funnier when those dry moralizingly high-performing bastards take it (or anything else) really serious. It is The Father, The Son, The Spirit and The Stand-Up Comedian; to be complete.

Ah yes, I apologize for not resuming the posting of excerpts just yet. I would like to hear why Book 1 – Chapter 2 is so to everybody’s taste. Not as a precondition for posting new chapters of The Book. Just as a like.